What Matters in Cancer Survivorship Research? A Suite of Stakeholder-Relevant Outcomes

Psychosocial interventions that target adult cancer survivors' reintegration into daily life after active cancer treatment: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review explored psychosocial interventions targeting adult cancer survivors' reintegration following active cancer treatment. This included the types of interventions tested and the tools used to measure reintegration.

INTRODUCTION

Cancer survivors face lingering health issues following the completion of cancer treatment. Many cancer survivors still experience unmet psychosocial care needs despite receiving follow-up care. Further, many survivorship interventions do not specifically address outcomes important to survivors. A number of primary studies have identified reintegration as an outcome important to cancer survivors. Reintegration is a concept that focuses on returning to normal activities, routines, and social roles after cancer treatment; however, it is emerging and abstract.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies involving adult cancer survivors (18 years or older at diagnosis) of any cancer type or stage were included in this review. Studies with psychosocial interventions targeted at reintegrating the person into daily life after cancer treatment were included. Interventions addressing clinical depression or anxiety, and interventions treating solely physical needs that were largely medically focused were excluded.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Embase. Gray literature was searched using ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest). Reference lists of included studies were searched. Studies were screened at the title/abstract and full-text levels, and 2 independent reviewers extracted data. Manuscripts in languages other than English were excluded due to feasibility (eg, cost, time of translations). Findings were summarized narratively and reported in tabular and diagrammatic format.

RESULTS

The 3-step search strategy yielded 5617 citations. After duplicates were removed, the remaining 4378 citations were screened at the title and abstract level, then the remaining 306 citations were evaluated at the full-text level by 2 independent reviewers. Forty studies were included that evaluated psychosocial interventions among adult cancer survivors trying to reintegrate after active cancer treatment (qualitative n=23, mixed methods n=8, quantitative n=8, systematic review n=1). Included articles spanned 10 different countries/regions. Over half of all included articles (n=25) focused primarily on breast cancer survivors. Many studies (n=17) were conducted in primary care or community-based settings. The most common types of interventions were peer-support groups (n=14), follow-up education and support (n=14), exercise programs (n=6), and multidisciplinary/multicomponent programs (n=6). While the majority of included studies characterized the outcome qualitatively, 9 quantitative tools were also employed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified 6 types of interventions to reintegrate survivors back into their daily lives following cancer treatment. An important thread across intervention types was a focus on personalization in the form of problem/goal identification. Given the number of qualitative studies, future research could include a qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation. Quantitative tools may not be as effective for evaluating reintegration. More primary studies, including mixed methods studies, utilizing consistent measurement tools are required. Furthermore, this work provides a basis for future research to continue examining the complexity of implementing such interventions to successfully achieve reintegration. To do so, primary studies evaluating interventions from an implementation science and complex systems perspective would be useful.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/r6bmx.

The association of cancer-related fatigue on the social, vocational and healthcare-related dimensions of cancer survivorship

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is well documented in cancer survivors, but little is known about the personal and societal impact of CRF. This study aimed to examine the impact of CRF in relation to social and vocational functioning and health care utilization in a large sample of post-treatment cancer survivors.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study of early stage breast and colorectal cancer survivors (n = 454) who were within 5 years from treatment completion. Social difficulties (SDI-21), work status, absenteeism and presenteeism (WHO-HPQ) and healthcare utilization (HSUQ) were compared in those with (CFR +) and without (CRF -) clinically significant fatigue (FACT-F ≤ 34).

RESULTS

A total of 32% met the cut-off criteria for CRF (≤ 34). Participants with CRF + had significantly higher scores on the SDI-21 across all domains and 55% of CRF + vs. 11% in CRF - was above the SDI cut-off (> 10) for significant social difficulties. Participants with CRF + were 2.74 times more likely to be unemployed or on leave (95% CI 1.62, 4.61, p < 0.001). In the subgroup of participants who were currently working (n = 249), those with CRF + reported working on average 27.4 fewer hours in the previous 4 weeks compared to CRF - (p = 0.05), and absolute presenteeism was on average 13% lower in the CRF + group (95% CI 8.0, 18.2, p < 0.001). Finally, individuals with CRF + reported significantly more physician (p < 0.001), other health care professional (p = 0.03) and psychosocial visits (p = 0.002) in the past month.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

CRF is associated with substantial disruption in social and work role functioning in the early transitional phase of cancer survivorship. Better management of persistent CRF and funding for the implementation of existing guidelines and recommended evidence-based interventions are urgently needed.

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed.

CONCLUSION

SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.

Psychosocial interventions that facilitate adult cancer survivors' reintegration into daily life after active cancer treatment: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review will map the extent and type of evidence related to psychosocial supports and interventions that facilitate adult cancer survivors' reintegration into daily life and activities after active cancer treatment.

INTRODUCTION

Cancer and its treatment have substantial late and long-term adverse impacts on survivors despite enhanced prospects for survival. Cancer survivors have unmet psychosocial care needs, and recent studies show a lack of focus in survivorship research on outcomes important to survivors. Reintegration is an emerging concept, identified as important to cancer survivors, that focuses on returning to a "new normal" after cancer treatment. This study will explore the available evidence on psychosocial interventions that are targeted toward this outcome.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The population of interest is adult survivors (18 years and older at diagnosis) of any cancer type. Concepts of interest include psychosocial interventions targeting the outcome and reintegration into daily life after cancer treatment. Interventions addressing clinical depression or anxiety and interventions treating physical needs that are largely medically focused will be excluded.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature will be conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase. Gray literature will be searched using ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Studies will be screened at the title/abstract and full-text levels, and data will be extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Disagreements that cannot be resolved will be settled by a third reviewer. Findings will be summarized narratively and in tabular format.

SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r6bmx).

Risk Stratification and Cancer Follow-Up: Towards More Personalized Post-Treatment Care in Canada

After treatment, cancer survivors require ongoing, comprehensive care to improve quality of life, reduce disability, limit complications, and restore function. In Canada and internationally, follow-up care continues to be delivered most often by oncologists in institution-based settings. There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that this model of care does not work well for many survivors or our cancer systems. Randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated that alternate approaches to follow-up care are equivalent to oncologist-led follow-up in terms of patient outcomes, such as recurrence, survival, and quality of life in a number of common cancers. In this paper, we discuss the state of follow-up care for survivors of prevalent cancers and the need for more personalized models of follow-up. Indeed, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to post-treatment follow-up care, and more personalized approaches to follow-up that are based on individual risks and needs after cancer treatment are warranted. Canada lags behind when it comes to personalizing follow-up care for cancer survivors. There are many reasons for this, including difficulty in determining who is best served by different follow-up pathways, a paucity of evidence-informed self-management education and supports for most survivors, poorly developed IT solutions and systems, and uneven coordination of care. Using implementation science theories, approaches, and methods may help in addressing these challenges and delineating what might work best in particular settings and circumstances.

Stakeholder-Identified Interventions to Address Cancer Survivors' Psychosocial Needs after Completing Treatment

The interventions used in cancer-survivorship care do not always address outcomes important to survivors. This study sought to understand stakeholders’ views on the key concerns of cancer survivors after treatment and the interventions needed to meet survivors’ and families’ psychosocial needs after completing cancer treatment. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (survivors, family/friend caregivers, oncology providers, primary care providers, and cancer system decision-/policy-makers) from across Canada. For the data analysis, we used techniques commonly employed in descriptive qualitative research, such as coding, grouping, detailing, and comparing the data. There were 44 study participants: 11 survivors, seven family/friend caregivers, 18 health care providers, and eight decision-/policy-makers. Stakeholder-relevant interventions to address survivors’ psychosocial needs were categorized into five groups, as follows: information provision, peer support, navigation, knowledge translation interventions, and caregiver-specific supports. These findings, particularly interventions that deliver timely and relevant information about the post-treatment period and knowledge translation interventions that strive to integrate effective tools and programs into survivorship care, have implications for future research and practice.